1. http://elindm2572.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1443446496781
2. http://rchcc.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflection-of-theme2.html?showComment=1443447383841
3. http://capitalmyboy.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-post-theme-post.html?showComment=1443448041840
4. http://ixxzw.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-after-seminar.html?showComment=1443449560603
5. http://tamfmtol.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-post-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1443450074358
Monday, 28 September 2015
Sunday, 27 September 2015
Theme 3: post seminar
This week we mainly talked and discussed about what a theory is. This topic was much easier to grasp and understand than previous themes, and less abstract and weird. Therefore I also found it harder to discuss since there was not as much to work with.
I think this was an important theme to discuss since so many people (including me) confuse the word theory with hypothesis and think they mean the same. Just like they are saying in the text “What theory is not” it is very hard to pin down exactly what it is. But basically, the conclusion from our seminar is that theory is an attempt at an explanation of why something is.
We also discussed what the main differences between a weak and a strong theory is. I had no idea that a theory could be weak or strong before this theme. After this theme I found that it is very hard to draw the line where a theory goes from weak to strong. It is a subjective evaluation of the theory. Though, one should always strive for a strong theory since a strong theory is always better than a weak theory. An example of a weak theory from the seminar is that when more ice cream is sold at the beach, more people get attacked by sharks. It is a weak theory because even though it may be true, correlation does not imply causation. A stronger theory would be for example that more people at the beach makes for a greater risk of shark attacks.
During the seminar we also discussed if we can know that a theory tells the truth. The answer given was that it is very hard or maybe impossible to obtain truth. Truth is a priori knowledge, other than that it is hard to talk about. We are constantly in different paradigms that sets the standard for what is considered legitimate contributions to a science. Therefore when a paradigm shift is happening a lot of theories can become untrue. An example of a paradigm shift is how we started thinking differently when we discovered that earth is not the center of the universe and that we are in fact orbiting around the sun.
A theory is very important to have since all data is already filtered and not objective. Data without a theory is useless. I think that this knowledge about what a theory is and how important it is would have been nice to have before I wrote my bachelor thesis.
I think this was an important theme to discuss since so many people (including me) confuse the word theory with hypothesis and think they mean the same. Just like they are saying in the text “What theory is not” it is very hard to pin down exactly what it is. But basically, the conclusion from our seminar is that theory is an attempt at an explanation of why something is.
We also discussed what the main differences between a weak and a strong theory is. I had no idea that a theory could be weak or strong before this theme. After this theme I found that it is very hard to draw the line where a theory goes from weak to strong. It is a subjective evaluation of the theory. Though, one should always strive for a strong theory since a strong theory is always better than a weak theory. An example of a weak theory from the seminar is that when more ice cream is sold at the beach, more people get attacked by sharks. It is a weak theory because even though it may be true, correlation does not imply causation. A stronger theory would be for example that more people at the beach makes for a greater risk of shark attacks.
During the seminar we also discussed if we can know that a theory tells the truth. The answer given was that it is very hard or maybe impossible to obtain truth. Truth is a priori knowledge, other than that it is hard to talk about. We are constantly in different paradigms that sets the standard for what is considered legitimate contributions to a science. Therefore when a paradigm shift is happening a lot of theories can become untrue. An example of a paradigm shift is how we started thinking differently when we discovered that earth is not the center of the universe and that we are in fact orbiting around the sun.
A theory is very important to have since all data is already filtered and not objective. Data without a theory is useless. I think that this knowledge about what a theory is and how important it is would have been nice to have before I wrote my bachelor thesis.
Friday, 25 September 2015
Theme 4: Quantitative research
For this assignment I chose the article “Channeling Science Information Seekers' Attention? A Content Analysis of Top-Ranked vs. Lower-Ranked Sites in Google”. The study examines search engines to see if they are biased towards showing certain types of links and information higher up in the list of results. In the paper they specifically targeted results from the queries regarding nanotechnology.
With an automatic program they collected data once every week, for 60 weeks, from the american version of Google (www.google.com) by submitting a search query including the word nanotechnology and a word representing different categories, e.g. “nanotechnology AND environment”. They then selected one week from every month at random and collected the first 32 links. The final database consisted of 9120 parent links and 224,987 child links. The program then tracked the frequencies of root words, e.g. “security”, “toxin”, “energy” etc., that then represented a theme. This is used to determine what the link was about.
The benefit of using an automatic process that collects the links and quantitative data is, of course, that it is easier to collect large amounts of data. Large amounts of unbiased data will often be more accurate and is therefore preferred. The limitation of this method is the control of the data that is collected. It’s hard to be certain that these themes and root words are accurate enough to represent reality. Though the sheer amount of data can often compensate for these inaccuracies. The method in this paper could always been more accurate by collecting more data and use more search queries and root words to divide the themes more finely. But somewhere we have to draw a line in order for something to be done.
IEEE VR 2012 - Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality
I feel that the authors of the article does a good job complementing the data from the scales in the questionnaire and the movement data. With this quantitative data they were able to rule out a lot of different interpretations and explain their main point in a logical and clear way. Even though they said that they had a semi-structured interview with every participant I could not find that they used it for anything important in the text. I think that since the article concerns a lot of stereotypes it was a smart move to lean towards using the quantitative data more. Since if the quantitative data is collected and interpreted in a good way it will show results in a very concrete and unbiased way.
Quantitative data is also a good tool for researchers to use if they want to take a step back from their own interpretation of the scene and just look at the numbers. Enough quantitative data therefore often allows for generalisations to an entire population. One disadvantage with quantitative data is that it does not tend to explain why something is done or why we perceive things in a certain way. Qualitative data is often much better when we want to understand how and why we feel, react and perceive something in a certain way. Qualitative data is also very good to use when we do not exactly know what we are looking for. Loose and descriptive answers could potentially lead to a bigger understanding of the underlying cause. One disadvantage of qualitative data is of course that it is very subjective and that must be taken into account when doing surveys that deals with this method.
References:
Channeling Science Information Seekers' Attention? A Content Analysis of Top-Ranked vs. Lower-Ranked Sites in Google
With an automatic program they collected data once every week, for 60 weeks, from the american version of Google (www.google.com) by submitting a search query including the word nanotechnology and a word representing different categories, e.g. “nanotechnology AND environment”. They then selected one week from every month at random and collected the first 32 links. The final database consisted of 9120 parent links and 224,987 child links. The program then tracked the frequencies of root words, e.g. “security”, “toxin”, “energy” etc., that then represented a theme. This is used to determine what the link was about.
The benefit of using an automatic process that collects the links and quantitative data is, of course, that it is easier to collect large amounts of data. Large amounts of unbiased data will often be more accurate and is therefore preferred. The limitation of this method is the control of the data that is collected. It’s hard to be certain that these themes and root words are accurate enough to represent reality. Though the sheer amount of data can often compensate for these inaccuracies. The method in this paper could always been more accurate by collecting more data and use more search queries and root words to divide the themes more finely. But somewhere we have to draw a line in order for something to be done.
IEEE VR 2012 - Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality
I feel that the authors of the article does a good job complementing the data from the scales in the questionnaire and the movement data. With this quantitative data they were able to rule out a lot of different interpretations and explain their main point in a logical and clear way. Even though they said that they had a semi-structured interview with every participant I could not find that they used it for anything important in the text. I think that since the article concerns a lot of stereotypes it was a smart move to lean towards using the quantitative data more. Since if the quantitative data is collected and interpreted in a good way it will show results in a very concrete and unbiased way.
Quantitative data is also a good tool for researchers to use if they want to take a step back from their own interpretation of the scene and just look at the numbers. Enough quantitative data therefore often allows for generalisations to an entire population. One disadvantage with quantitative data is that it does not tend to explain why something is done or why we perceive things in a certain way. Qualitative data is often much better when we want to understand how and why we feel, react and perceive something in a certain way. Qualitative data is also very good to use when we do not exactly know what we are looking for. Loose and descriptive answers could potentially lead to a bigger understanding of the underlying cause. One disadvantage of qualitative data is of course that it is very subjective and that must be taken into account when doing surveys that deals with this method.
References:
Channeling Science Information Seekers' Attention? A Content Analysis of Top-Ranked vs. Lower-Ranked Sites in Google
Monday, 21 September 2015
Theme 1 - Comments:
https://tmmkappa.wordpress.com - My comment is not showing up because of the admin-rights on the website.
http://mawnzblog.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflections-post-theme-1.html?showComment=1442837800559
http://theoryandmethodmediatechnology.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory_9.html?showComment=1442838733401
http://amlinden.blogspot.se/2015/09/0-0-1-266-1411-kth-11-3-1674-14.html?showComment=1442839851304
http://theorymethodmediatech.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme1theory-of-knowledge-and-theory-of.html?showComment=1442841265713
https://tmmkappa.wordpress.com - My comment is not showing up because of the admin-rights on the website.
http://mawnzblog.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflections-post-theme-1.html?showComment=1442837800559
http://theoryandmethodmediatechnology.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory_9.html?showComment=1442838733401
http://amlinden.blogspot.se/2015/09/0-0-1-266-1411-kth-11-3-1674-14.html?showComment=1442839851304
http://theorymethodmediatech.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme1theory-of-knowledge-and-theory-of.html?showComment=1442841265713
Sunday, 20 September 2015
Theme 2: Post seminar
Just like last week I feel that I have a much better understanding of what the theme really is about after going to the lecture and discuss the questions during the seminar.
Nominalism is a way to think about objects. It questions the idea of categorising objects in to pens, bottles and so on. Instead the focus lies on the properties and particularities of the object. For example a pen is an object that you can write with and the only thing that is real is the individual pen. It might be better to look at the properties of an object to understand it and not get lost in abstractness.
While nominalism at first sounds like a very logical and useful way of thinking, Adorno and Horkheimer are critical of it. If we only observe properties and objects that exists we can not question it, which means that we are slaves to it. In Italian fascism people believed that some people are born poor and some rich, that’s just the law of nature. If everything repeats, like nominalism is arguing, the working class will always be poor and the rich will always be rich. In order for us to have human rights we need a concept to strive for a better world and not just observe that there are people that starve, get abused and so on without thinking more about it because that’s just the way it is.
An example from the seminar was that, in film, secretaries were portrayed very traditionally. It’s a woman with a male boss. According to Adorno and Horkheimer this would only enforce the old values and take the edge of the growing frustration which does not lead to any changes. Benjamin is more positive and thinks there is a potential revolution in this. Thanks to industrial mass producing that removes the aura and the uniqueness from art and makes it available for the masses.
During the seminar we also talked about Platonic realism and used plato’s cave as an illustration for what it is. Basically what it says is that there is a, for example, perfect and original chair and all the other chairs that we see are shadows of that one. In nominalism every object is unique and is how we see it, in realism the object is part of its concept. When we observe the world it is important, like I stated earlier, to be able to see a different future and reality in order to make the world a better place. Therefore we can not only see the world and accept it like it is, we need to conceptualise what we see in order to think freely.
Nominalism is a way to think about objects. It questions the idea of categorising objects in to pens, bottles and so on. Instead the focus lies on the properties and particularities of the object. For example a pen is an object that you can write with and the only thing that is real is the individual pen. It might be better to look at the properties of an object to understand it and not get lost in abstractness.
While nominalism at first sounds like a very logical and useful way of thinking, Adorno and Horkheimer are critical of it. If we only observe properties and objects that exists we can not question it, which means that we are slaves to it. In Italian fascism people believed that some people are born poor and some rich, that’s just the law of nature. If everything repeats, like nominalism is arguing, the working class will always be poor and the rich will always be rich. In order for us to have human rights we need a concept to strive for a better world and not just observe that there are people that starve, get abused and so on without thinking more about it because that’s just the way it is.
An example from the seminar was that, in film, secretaries were portrayed very traditionally. It’s a woman with a male boss. According to Adorno and Horkheimer this would only enforce the old values and take the edge of the growing frustration which does not lead to any changes. Benjamin is more positive and thinks there is a potential revolution in this. Thanks to industrial mass producing that removes the aura and the uniqueness from art and makes it available for the masses.
During the seminar we also talked about Platonic realism and used plato’s cave as an illustration for what it is. Basically what it says is that there is a, for example, perfect and original chair and all the other chairs that we see are shadows of that one. In nominalism every object is unique and is how we see it, in realism the object is part of its concept. When we observe the world it is important, like I stated earlier, to be able to see a different future and reality in order to make the world a better place. Therefore we can not only see the world and accept it like it is, we need to conceptualise what we see in order to think freely.
Friday, 18 September 2015
Theme 3: Research and theory
Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.
A theory is the explanation of why a certain result was found in a study. The explanation should consist of facts and evidence that connects to each other. To have a strong theory you must explain why one fact leads to another fact that leads to the result you got. A theory is according to Robert Sutton and Barry Staw (1995) not references, data, variables, diagrams and hypothesis.
Journal: Computers in Human Behavior
This journal includes articles about the psychological impact of computers on humans. The journal addresses articles about how we use and can use computers for education, training, research and more. It also includes articles about how we can change behaviour, personality, learning and so on with the help of computers. The journal is only about the interaction between humans and the computer and not about the hardware the computer is made of.
Article from the journal: How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination - An empiricial study (Ming-Shiou Kuo, Tsung-Yen Chuang, 2014)
Just like the title is suggesting this article is about gamification. Gamification is when you apply different game mechanics and elements to a non-game context with the intent to motivate and engage the user more.
The purpose of the article is to promote and disseminate academic content by applying gamification to a website called “Learning on Projects of United Promotion for Academia” (LOPUPA, http://lopupa.npust.edu.tw). They looked at what type of game designs were the most effective at achieving this by setting up an online platform for students to use. They then collected quantitative data with the help of Google Analytics and qualitative data with an optional survey.
I feel like throughout the whole article a lot of assumptions were made by Kuo and Chang with no source to back it up. Some of them might seem obvious but I still would like to see some backing of the assertion that “academic information is usually considered to be abstruse and uninteresting” for example, since that is what they are building the usefulness of gamification on.
Kuo and Chang concludes from their results that graphical virtual feedback (trophies, badges etc.), thematic activities and a discussion board are the three most important mechanics to use in gamification. They are trying to give a short explanation and theory of why they got these results but there are some missing links. The website they set up basically contains lots of different games which goals are to educate. Since these games focus on education in different subjects it’s entirely possible that a lot of people will like a game more because the subject interests them more, and not because they like that it has a leaderboard for example. This is not discussed in the article.
Another conclusion they are making is that their expectations of how their website would engage people was met. Even though they did not make any expectations in the text and they did not have any other website to compare it to. The only thing they had in their results was the statistics from Google Analytics on their website. Which I think makes for a poor argument that their expectations were met.
I would say that their main theory in this article is why some game mechanics are more suitable for gamification than others. Even though I don’t fully agree with the conclusion, they are giving us a clear answer to what mechanics are the most effective. However, as I said earlier, the explanation to why they came up with these results is lacking. I would say that this is a theory of type 3 - Prediction (Gregor S, 2006, p. 620, Table 2). Kuo and Chang are clearly showing that some particular game mechanics were more popular and made the students stay longer. But they are making, in my opinion, a very poor attempt explaining why these are related.
The good thing about this type of theory is of course that we can predict results. For example the prediction of weather (Gregor S, 2006, p. 626). The limitation of the theory is also pretty obvious. Correlations between two variables does not necessarily imply a casual relationship (Gregor S, 2006, p. 626).
References:
Gregor S, The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, 2006.
Sutton R. I. & Staw B. M, What Theory is Not, 1995.
Kuo M & Chuang T, How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination - An empiricial study, 2014.
A theory is the explanation of why a certain result was found in a study. The explanation should consist of facts and evidence that connects to each other. To have a strong theory you must explain why one fact leads to another fact that leads to the result you got. A theory is according to Robert Sutton and Barry Staw (1995) not references, data, variables, diagrams and hypothesis.
Journal: Computers in Human Behavior
This journal includes articles about the psychological impact of computers on humans. The journal addresses articles about how we use and can use computers for education, training, research and more. It also includes articles about how we can change behaviour, personality, learning and so on with the help of computers. The journal is only about the interaction between humans and the computer and not about the hardware the computer is made of.
Article from the journal: How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination - An empiricial study (Ming-Shiou Kuo, Tsung-Yen Chuang, 2014)
Just like the title is suggesting this article is about gamification. Gamification is when you apply different game mechanics and elements to a non-game context with the intent to motivate and engage the user more.
The purpose of the article is to promote and disseminate academic content by applying gamification to a website called “Learning on Projects of United Promotion for Academia” (LOPUPA, http://lopupa.npust.edu.tw). They looked at what type of game designs were the most effective at achieving this by setting up an online platform for students to use. They then collected quantitative data with the help of Google Analytics and qualitative data with an optional survey.
I feel like throughout the whole article a lot of assumptions were made by Kuo and Chang with no source to back it up. Some of them might seem obvious but I still would like to see some backing of the assertion that “academic information is usually considered to be abstruse and uninteresting” for example, since that is what they are building the usefulness of gamification on.
Kuo and Chang concludes from their results that graphical virtual feedback (trophies, badges etc.), thematic activities and a discussion board are the three most important mechanics to use in gamification. They are trying to give a short explanation and theory of why they got these results but there are some missing links. The website they set up basically contains lots of different games which goals are to educate. Since these games focus on education in different subjects it’s entirely possible that a lot of people will like a game more because the subject interests them more, and not because they like that it has a leaderboard for example. This is not discussed in the article.
Another conclusion they are making is that their expectations of how their website would engage people was met. Even though they did not make any expectations in the text and they did not have any other website to compare it to. The only thing they had in their results was the statistics from Google Analytics on their website. Which I think makes for a poor argument that their expectations were met.
I would say that their main theory in this article is why some game mechanics are more suitable for gamification than others. Even though I don’t fully agree with the conclusion, they are giving us a clear answer to what mechanics are the most effective. However, as I said earlier, the explanation to why they came up with these results is lacking. I would say that this is a theory of type 3 - Prediction (Gregor S, 2006, p. 620, Table 2). Kuo and Chang are clearly showing that some particular game mechanics were more popular and made the students stay longer. But they are making, in my opinion, a very poor attempt explaining why these are related.
The good thing about this type of theory is of course that we can predict results. For example the prediction of weather (Gregor S, 2006, p. 626). The limitation of the theory is also pretty obvious. Correlations between two variables does not necessarily imply a casual relationship (Gregor S, 2006, p. 626).
References:
Gregor S, The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, 2006.
Sutton R. I. & Staw B. M, What Theory is Not, 1995.
Kuo M & Chuang T, How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination - An empiricial study, 2014.
Monday, 14 September 2015
Theme 1: post seminar
I found both the dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus and the preface to Kant’s Critique of pure reason very hard to understand when I read them. In an attempt to clarify I discussed them with some people from class. To my relieve/disappointment they understood about as much as I did about the meaning of the texts, but together we managed to sort out some of the concepts and ideas. The lecture about Kant and the seminar clarified it a bit further for me.
I think that the main thing Kant is saying is that we will never be able to look at the world in a completely objective way. Everyone will always have different perceptions of the world. Just the basic fact that we are humans makes us look at the world in a special way. Because of this we can not look at the world from “God’s point of view” which is a view of the world without any experiences intervening with the perception of it. Without context and earlier experiences nothing in the world makes sense anymore. The world where a thing exist is what makes that thing be that thing. A bottle is a bottle only in the world where people know what a bottle is.
Kant said that “Perception without conception is blind and conception without perception is empty”. This means that we can not know anything about the world in itself without seeing it in our conception. Everyone sees the world according to themselves and not from “God’s point of view”. The world is dependent of us interpreting it. An example from the lecture was that a tree is still there when no one is around to see it. Therefore it is “in itself” and some might argue that no one has to be there and see the tree for it to exist. But the concept “in itself” only exists because we came up with that concept and would not exist otherwise.
During the discussion at the seminar we were all a little bit confused about what a priori knowledge really meant. Here is a short explanation of what we came up with. Kant divides all the basic ways we perceive an object into 12 categories. These categories are characteristics we can know about an object before we examine it. Therefore it is a priori knowledge and that is what we use to get a posteriori knowledge. I feel that this is a really hard concept to grasp and I am still not sure that I get it.
I think that the main thing Kant is saying is that we will never be able to look at the world in a completely objective way. Everyone will always have different perceptions of the world. Just the basic fact that we are humans makes us look at the world in a special way. Because of this we can not look at the world from “God’s point of view” which is a view of the world without any experiences intervening with the perception of it. Without context and earlier experiences nothing in the world makes sense anymore. The world where a thing exist is what makes that thing be that thing. A bottle is a bottle only in the world where people know what a bottle is.
Kant said that “Perception without conception is blind and conception without perception is empty”. This means that we can not know anything about the world in itself without seeing it in our conception. Everyone sees the world according to themselves and not from “God’s point of view”. The world is dependent of us interpreting it. An example from the lecture was that a tree is still there when no one is around to see it. Therefore it is “in itself” and some might argue that no one has to be there and see the tree for it to exist. But the concept “in itself” only exists because we came up with that concept and would not exist otherwise.
During the discussion at the seminar we were all a little bit confused about what a priori knowledge really meant. Here is a short explanation of what we came up with. Kant divides all the basic ways we perceive an object into 12 categories. These categories are characteristics we can know about an object before we examine it. Therefore it is a priori knowledge and that is what we use to get a posteriori knowledge. I feel that this is a really hard concept to grasp and I am still not sure that I get it.
Friday, 11 September 2015
Theme 2: Critical media studies
Dialectic of Enlightenment
1. What is “Enlightenment"?
Broadly understood as the advancement of thought.
“For enlightenment, anything which does not conform to the standard of calculability and utility must be viewed with suspicion.” - page 3
Enlightenment was an era were superstition and fate was no longer considered knowledge and no longer relevant in science. People start to think for themselves and are not just blindly following a religion or myth. Since according to Horkheimer and Adorno knowledge is power and therefore I think people embraced the enlightenment to get it.
2. What is “Dialectic"?
Dialectic is when you with reasoned arguments and counter arguments cancel out everything in a concept or idea that is false. This will eventually result in a conclusion and maybe new insights.
3. What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism rejects the idea of abstract objects or universals. Just because someone describes an object as small it does not mean that it is small compared to everything or perceived the same way for everyone.
4. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
Myth was used to explain things that people did not understand. The fear of the unknown made people believe in these stories. Myth was also used to record the history. Myth is not built on logic or nature, it’s only a way to explain concepts in the world in a way that we can understand.
"The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"
In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analysing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?
Substructure comprehends everything that is about production. E.g. the tools that are used in production and the working conditions. The superstructure is everything that is not directly connected to production. E.g. culture, art, politics and religion. Benjamin talks about how the substructure is much faster to change than the superstructure and the superstructure adapts and eventually conforms to the substructure. The point of analysing this is to analyse the basic conditions of capitalistic production to foresee the future of capitalism.
2. Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?
Film for example has no more revolutionary merit than promoting criticism of traditional concepts. But by promoting criticism a revolution could potentially happen. Since film can spread to a larger portion of the population than theatre more people will hear the message and be affected by it.
3. Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).
Perception historically speaking is how we perceive the world differently because of culture and events that happened and so on. The enlightenment was an era that changed the thoughts and perception of unnatural things for many and therefore the perception was historically determined. Perception that is naturally determined is not affected by culture and other external circumstances but is more or less the same for everyone.
4. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
The aura of an object is its uniqueness. A staty made by someone by hand has a strong aura because of its presence in time and uniqueness. There is no way that the artist could make an exact copy of that statue, therefore it’s completely unique. When a perfect reproduction of a piece of art is made it will loose its uniqueness and therefore its aura. The aura of a work of art also includes the tradition and culture that its surrounded with.
Sunday, 6 September 2015
Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science
For this first theme I have read the preface of the second edition of “Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant and Plato’s Theaetetus.
Kant is writing about how a science needs to follow guidelines and rules so that it’s clear how to proceed and always come to a conclusion of some sort. Kant calls this the secure path of a science. When a science follows its secure path it never has to backtrack and follow a new path to advance. Kant uses mathematics as an example of something that follows a straight path with no deviations. Every science wants to find this path because only then can you be sure to reach unanimity and a true conclusion.
"In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?"
The idea behind this is that instead of finding objects to try to describe and explain, we should try to think and come up with an idea or conclusion and from that conclusion see if the object fits in that cognition. This way it can be easier to find out and learn new things about the universe for example, where it can be hard to discover objects if you have no idea what you’re looking for.
To illustrate the concept of a priori (knowledge without experience) Kant writes about Copernicus who finally could explain how celestial bodys move in the universe. He did this by changing his view on the object and instead of trying to make sense of what he saw, he reasoned and came up with an idea which he later could confirm by observation.
Plato’s Theaetetus is for the most part a dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus. Socrates says that what he does is a lot like what a midwife is doing. But instead of delivering babies he brings forward and tests ideas that the person he’s talking to has. By discussion and reasoned arguments Socrates tests the idea and decides if it’s true or false. Socrates says that he never has any opinions in the matter himself, instead he lets the person he is discussing with form his own.
"At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call “empiricism"?"
We see through the eyes and hear through the ears because ears and eyes are just the tools that help us collect the data that the mind then interpret and makes sense of. Depending on ourselves and our experiences we interpret things differently. This means that the perception of one person is with a high probability not the same as the perception of another person.
The theory of empiricism says that knowledge comes primarily from experience. Socrates says that the perception of a person is different from another, which means that knowledge is not perception. Therefore Socrates argument is directed against empiricism.
Both Kant and Socrates speaks highly of reasoned and rational arguments to determine the correctness of an assertion and that experience is not enough. Therefore they are both making arguments against empiricism, and I think they are making very good arguments. Experience is important but it’s far more important to remember that what appears to be clear and obvious might be interpreted differently by others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)